ML20045D189
| ML20045D189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1993 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#293-14044 OLA, NUDOCS 9306280077 | |
| Download: ML20045D189 (7) | |
Text
...
d i:BLP i Ti.0 USNkC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 93 yyj 16. A10:38.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD K nui "
i rt s s
Before Administrative Judges:
I" E y 1; Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Dr. Charles N. Kelber i
Dr. Jerry R.
Kline 8ERVED JUN 16 $93 In the Matter of NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY Docket Nos.-50-336-OLA COMPANY FOL No. DPR-65 (ASLBP No. 92-665-02-OLA)
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2)
(Spent Fuel Pool Design)
June 15, 1993 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denvina CCMN'S Motion To Connel Responses) l Synoosis The Cooperative Citizens Monitoring Network (CCMN) moved on May 3, 1993 to compel responses to its December 5, 1992 discovery requests of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) and the NRC Staff.
The Licensing Board denies the motion because it is very late without good cause.
Backaround The Licensing Board's Memorandum and Order (following prehearing conference) dated November 24, 1992
(" Scheduling 9306280077 930615
)@((7/
PDR ADOCK 05000336 G
. Order") authorized discovery to begin on December 5,
- 1992, and established January 21, 1993 as the deadline for filing responses to uncontested discovery requests.
See Scheduling Order, slip op. at 6.
Objections to discovery requests were to be filed by January 12, 1993.
Id. at 7.
CCMN filed discovery requests directed to both the Staff and NNECO on December 5, 1992.
In.accordance with the Scheduling Order, the Staff filed its responses and objections to CCMN discovery requests on January 12, 1993.
On January 15, 1993, NNECO filed responses to CCMN's requests.
However, with respect to CCMN discovery Request t
No.
1, NNECO withheld certain information on the asserted grounds that the respective information was either outside the scope of the proceeding, or was proprietary information belonging to its contractor.2 Section 2.740(f) of 10 C.F.R.
specifies that parties who are not satisfied with responses to discovery requests have ten days from the date of the filing of the response to move for an order compelling discovery.
With the addition-r of five days for filings served by mail, any CCMN motion to compel regarding the staff's January 12 response was due by January 27, 1993.
By the same method of calculation, CCMN 1
1The Board regards the withholding of information to be informal objections.
As such, the NNECO's objections would.
have been slightly late.
However, by letter of January 7, 1993, counsel for NNECO requested negative. approval by the Board to delay the filing of objections pending further negotiations.
The Board did not disapprove.
i
-3 had until February 1, 1993 (adding a weekend to the calculation) to file any motion to compel NNECO to respond
[
to discovery requests.
CCMN's May 3, 1993 motion to compel i
is, therefore, about three months late.
Discussion From the very beginning of this proceeding the Board has been concerned that CCMN's representative, Ms. Mary Ellen Marucci, has been unable to grasp the. significance of 1
NRC rules and Board orders pertaining to the method and timing of the service of pleadings.
We have taken extraordinary steps to impress upon Ms. Marucci the need to comply with NRC service and timeliness requirements.
We have also provided her with respective information and f
2 guidance,
Despite the Board's earlier guidance and warnings, during the prehearing conference of April 7,
- 1993, Ms. Marucci stated to the Board that she was confused about how to address the NNECO and Staff objections to her December 5, 1992 discovery requests and asked the Board how to proceed.
She was apparently unaware that the provisions of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.740(f) provide for motions-to compel responses'and establish a ten-day time period for filing 2Xtg.,
Scheduling Order at 3 n.1; and Tr. 85-88 of the November 5, 1992 prehearing conference.
i
-4 those motions, as cited above.
Tr. 93-95, 102.
Although Ms. Marucci had been aware that both the Staff and NNECO had filed timely motions to compel CCMN to respond to discovery (and why they did so), she was too busy on other matters to learn from those filings that CCMN also should have filed a timely motion to compel discovery.
Tr. 99.
In very strong terms the Board admonished Ms. Marucci that she had long passed the ten-day period for filing notions to compel responses to CCMN's discovery requests.
l E.a.,
Tr. 110.
Most important, the Board, once again t
referred Ms. Marucci to the discovery rules and warned her that if she were to file a motion to compel discovery, the Board would not even entertain the motion unless it was accompanied by a thorough and convincing discussion of her reasons for filing the motion late.
Tr. 108-110.
Twenty-six days later, on May 3,
- 1983, Ms. Marucci, on behalf of CCMN, filed the instant motion.
CCMN's only explanation for the non-timely filing was ".
because we misinterpreted the time frame in which we were to file our objections to their objection to our inquiries."
Motion at 1.
She makes no effort whatever to explain why CCMN y
allowed twenty-six days to elapse from the April 7 l
i prehearing conference until the filing of the motion.
.i 1
.* m m
+ - ' - - - - -
i-,+
q.
. Rulina and Order CCMN has not established good cause for the late filing of its motion to compel discovery of the Staff and NNECO.
We reject and deny the motion on those grounds.3 FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/
/
r //////
/
. ffdW
'lv5n W.
Smith, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE f
Bethesda, Maryland June 15, 1993 1
3The NRC Staff and NNECO have argued in their respective responses to CCMN's motion to compel, that in 1
addition to its lateness, the motion lacks merit.
Staff's
' Response at 3-5; NNECO. Response at 3-4.
For the reasons stated in this Order, we do not reach the merits of CCMN's motion.
However, we have examined CCMN's. motion to determine whether the information is necessary to a complete and reliable record on the admitted contention and whether it should be produced as a matter of Board discretion.
We find that the information is not necessary.
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the Matter of NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Docket No.(s) 50-336-0LA (Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB M&O (DENYING CCMN MOTION..)
have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except.
as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Ivan W. Smith, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Charles N. Kelber Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 John T. Hull, Esq.
Richard M. Kacich Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
Director, Nuclear Licensing Office of the General Counsel Northeast Utilities i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
'P. O. Box 270 Washington, DC 20555 Hartford, CT 06101 Patricia R. Nowicki Mitzi S. Bowman
)
t Associate Director Coordinator EARTHVISION, INC.
DON'T WASTE CONNECTICUT 42 Highland Drive 97 Longhill Terrace South Windsor, CT 06074 New Haven, CT 06515
Docket No.(s)50-336-0LA LB M&O (DENYING CCMN MOTION..)
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
John A. MacEvoy, Esq.
Mary Ellen Marucci Winston & Strawn 104 Brownell Street 1400 L Street, N.W.
New Haven, CT 06511 Washington, DC 20005 Michael J. Pray, AIA Frank X. Lo Sacco 87 Blinman Street 4 Glover Place, Box 1125 New London, CT 06320 Middletown, CT 06457 Joseph M. Sullivan Rosemary Griffiths 17 Laurel Street 39 South Street Waterford, CT 06385 Niantic, CT 06357 Professor Michio Kaku Department of Physics City College of New York 138th Street and Covent Avenue New York, NY 10031 4
Dated at Rockville, Md. this 16 day of June 1993
~
Office of the Secretary of the Commission I
-